Kelly's Truth Paper

[MKFaizi]

Kelly,

I wrote a longer post but lost it due to a computer outage.

No matter. I will condense it.

What you call work, I call pleasure. Work is toil for a dollar.

When you took a pension on the claim that you are too depressed to toil, were you not saying that you are too wise to toil for a buck? Are not you too wise to be a nurse or a clerk or a teacher?

Claiming oneself to be above toil for a buck is privilege.

I do not get social benefit nor any other ego gratifying benefit from my work. I do it strictly to pay the bills. I would love to be free of it.

On the other hand, eight hours of toil a day no longer feels like much of a burden. It is pretty easy.

Please do not pretend that you toil for a dollar. You don't. You are free from that. Otherwise, you would be working as a waitress or a teacher or this or that, against your desire -- because you would have no other way to pay for food or rent or whatever.

You have a pension and you do not have to worry about making a living. You are free to write and to think.

I don't think you work harder on writing or thinking than I do. I just have to do it with a monkey on my back.

I do not begrudge your privilege. I just think the pretense stinks.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Obviously, when attention on the forum turned more to sex on the Sims post from Shantz than toward Kelly, Kevin deemed it necessary to put out a thread completely dedicated to Kelly.

How nice of him.

Faizi

[Jason]

But damn. Maybe, Kevin can suggest some forums for me like he did for Donna because I think ya'll genuii might be better left to yourselves.

Faizi

That must be like what your 20th time you've said you're gonna leave Marsha? You are a drama queen - but that's part of what makes you entertaining to me, and it's not all that you are, you do have value beyond that. I'm not goading you to leave(I'd prefer you stay) just pointing out the facts Ma.

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla Shen Wrote:

A miracle? That's a bit romantic, ain't it? Nah -- think I prefer plain ol' cause and effect.

Yes, I have to agree with you that it is a little too romantic to call an abomination to womanhood a “miracle”. But what else can I call it when a biological female sets her cap at something as ugly and cruel as wisdom.

That’s why I asked if she were mad!

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly wrote:

Although only a few men have, there are more of them than women. I think this is why it is a "true miracle" (causes conscious of God) when any woman takes on philosophy, since women aren't suited to philosophy.

Yes, sad but true, woman will never know the greatness of the Infinite.
There man sits, alone, wrapped in the absolute, without a woman in sight.
Oh well, it can’t be helped. So it is best not to worry about it too much.

Then again, maybe we should? Could we be fooling ourselves into a false sense of security?

There is a good reason why there aren’t many women getting their teeth into philosophy and that reason is simple. They are WOMEN!

I am sure that there have been plenty of intelligent women who have realized the ‘life of woman’ was not something they could take seriously. So they looked around for an alternative and some of those women must have happened upon philosophy. Most that looked probably found philosophy too isolating (not something you could win friends and influence people with), and quietly left and joined a political party or academia, wrote a novel or became mothers. The few who stayed on would have found the philosophical life very hard going, but ploughed on anyway.

What happened to those women? Why don’t we have any evidence of them?

My conclusion is that they did not plough on at all. When things got too tough they just went back to their old lives.

This is not hard to believe when you remember that the whole world is feminine and that women have more to lose than men if they try to leave it, because women are defined by femininity. Everywhere they go Woman is there telling them to stop their foolishness and just be happy. Obviously men are getting the same message, but a few strong ones have resisted over the years and have made some progress.

So, even though we may be giving philosophy a shot, there are no guarantees that it will stick, but I still think it’s worth a try.

I know that is what I see you doing, Kelly – giving it a try.

Sue

[MKFaizi]

Is this the old tire iron Jason? All grown up?

I was not threatening to leave. I just thought that if Kevin could suggest forums where everyone would kiss my ass, I might be interested.

Ma

[MKFaizi]

It is interesting how most women will take the easy out when the going gets too tough.

I work with nearly all women. None of them can imagine life without a husband or whatever you want to call them. Their husbands do all the hard work for them. They each know that if they have a problem, they can call their husbands. If their car breaks down, they call their husbands. If the toilet won't flush, they call their husbands. If they can't cope with the children or with any other facet of life, they call their husbands.

So, what do you do if you have a problem and you don't have and don't want to have a husband?

You pay for services. With money, not sex or food.

Faizi

[kjones]

Rationality isn't intrinsically sexual either. It's masculine only when what is rational is typically male. Far into the future, the rational will probably be robotic, so there'd be no need for irrational robots, or other feminine traits.

Truth is arrived at using reasoning, and rationality is a masculine quality,...

You seem to be contradicting yourself left, right and centre. I am having a very difficult time having a meanigful discussion with you, quite frankly. I shall try and persevere. Is masculinity -- right now -- a sexual trait or not?

Putting pressure on the wannabe wise man indicates how much you personally value honesty. It's a good sign.

Of course masculinity is sexual. Traits like rationality, intelligence, perseverence, honesty, aggression, imagination, and so on, are sexualised as masculine when they're more common to men than to women. When both men and women equally and commonly have these traits, then they're not sexual. So, until humanity is so masculine as to no longer be masculine, rationality will be known as a masculine sexual trait. The causes create it.

Take this scenario. Humans will increase their chances of survival by colonising or creating other planets. Because fuel is largely needed to escape earth's gravity, rockets have to be very lightweight (or we could build incredibly strong space jetties to start with). We'd reduce human body-weight by converting humans into lightweight robotic structures. Eventually too, the brain would become robotic, and humans no longer sexually reproductive. Even if there was a mother component, such as a nanobiotech product-testing factory, I don't think that would be a feminine sexual trait.

Feminine traits continue largely because those with enough masculine qualities are afraid of losing their security blankets. These are womanish people. It goes to show that women aren't concerned about the survival of the species at all.

[sevens]

Hey Marsha -

What would you grow in that garden anyway?

--

How would grapes work?

And could you isolate figs, without the tree?

[kjones]

What you call work, I call pleasure. Work is toil for a dollar..... I do not get social benefit nor any other ego gratifying benefit from my work. I do it strictly to pay the bills. I would love to be free of it. On the other hand, eight hours of toil a day no longer feels like much of a burden. It is pretty easy.

Stake your life on your values. How many dollars do you really need to survive? If you're serious about wisdom, give up your kids, electricity, phone, internet, entertainment, cooked foods, private washing and sleeping facilities --- since they can't be giving you pleasure or ego gratification. I'm not trying to play one-up. I'm just seeing if you're bluffing or not.

When you took a pension on the claim that you are too depressed to toil, were you not saying that you are too wise to toil for a buck? Are not you too wise to be a nurse or a clerk or a teacher?

I never claimed to be depressed, schizotypal or psychotic. Everything about my quest to become perfectly enlightened was above-board. I explained my reasoning in great depth, in two-hour sessions with a psychiatrist, roughly every 2-3 weeks, for 10 months. Two welfare system psychologists also examined my ideas in three other appointments. The latter assessed me to have depression, a schizotypal personality disorder and a prodromal psychotic illness, disregarding my direct and well-reasoned disagreement.

I'd have no problem with toiling for a buck if I thought it would be a wise thing to do. For instance, busking with a hat in front with coins, might bring a person closer. I might have some of my Truth Papers there. It could put them at ease, enough to listen to the music or what I might say, without social guilt bothering them. Having money and working for it has a very strong influence on a person's sense of self. Done intelligently, working for money could be useful lesson about spirit.

Please do not pretend that you toil for a dollar. You don't. You are free from that. Otherwise, you would be working as a waitress or a teacher or this or that, against your desire -- because you would have no other way to pay for food or rent or whatever. You have a pension and you do not have to worry about making a living. You are free to write and to think. I don't think you work harder on writing or thinking than I do. I just have to do it with a monkey on my back. I do not begrudge your privilege. I just think the pretense stinks.

Well, next July I may not have a pension any longer. The Australian welfare system is being reformed to put workable bums on seats.
My "freedom" wouldn't change, you know. I'd still appear like a vagrant, and give my occupation as Thinker, dedicated to becoming as wise as possible, and helping as many people as possible come to understand what is ultimately true. I've tested dumpster-diving, roaming for food late at night, begging for food, sleeping in very cold outdoors conditions, and being ill at the same time. It would be a strong challenge also for others, to witness someone relaxed, thoughtful, and fairly healthy, with a great sense of humour, yet having nothing they consider essential.

By the way, this thread is not completely dedicated to Kelly. It's subject matter is the Truth Paper. I'd like a bit of feedback on it.

[Blair]

Is there a difference between the paper and you? I don't see one.

Why get yourself sterilized, that's what I want to know.

But of course, you won't answer it.

[Jason]

Is this the old tire iron Jason? All grown up?

Yeah it's me. Funny that the tire iron incident seems to recurringly identifiy with me in your brain.

I was not threatening to leave. I just thought that if Kevin could suggest forums where everyone would kiss my ass, I might be interested.
Ma

Ok. You're not a drama queen now. Honest.

[kjones]

A bunch of hot air for the simple purpose of filling up space. What is the extent of Ksolways influence on Kjones? I would like to hear from both. The paper itself is not that interesting.....Is there a difference between the paper and you? I don't see one. Why get yourself sterilized, that's what I want to know. But of course, you won't answer it.

I wonder why.

For the benefit of more intelligent readers, it doesn't matter how much one is influenced, as long as one comes to know the Infinite, and without any doubt. Absolute isolation is logically impossible, in any case, since there is no thing that can be permanently off-limits to causation. Lack of self-reliant rationality is definitely a problem for most people, and best fixed by throwing all your energy into resolving your doubts utterly. This may lead you to the same conclusions as others, or not.

I admit I'm still toeing the line with how I express my understanding, and it hasn't fully developed into a free, all-encompassing, and flexible knowledge. I'm learning to "ride", so to speak, and let go of the pommel.

I chose to be sterilised to make child-rearing more difficult, in case I ever had irrational urges to do so. It's far more probable that a single child won't develop into a wise individual, over against many adults. Just calculating the best way to use my time.

Scientists lead the human herd in valuing ignorance and falsity. When they discover new things and become excited about their accomplishment, they confuse the certainty of having discovered something, with the false assumption of discovering all the causal conditions for the thing. A scientist claiming he has experimental control, is lying.

Yet, even you -- testoserone and sex change -- in your pursuit of and dedication to ultimate truth, value science. Even you value the fruit of its ignorance and falsity.
How can this be? Where is the rationality in this compulsion?

Are you working overtime? You seem to be missing the point quite a lot. This could be owing to my definitions lacking enough definition, however.

Scientists arriving at their conclusions, and announcing new discoveries, I have no problem with. Science is an inescapable part of a rational existence. It's the extra unnecessary step of claiming that the causes of any particular thing can be known in full. That's an outright lie. In a society valuing honesty, scientists wouldn't need to lie to get the funds they need.

Undermining my ego is a logical response to understanding the nature of Reality. Knowing that the boundaries of me, or of anything, are all caused, it's truthful of me to keep remembering this.

So, truthfulness is about undermining all boundaries (including those labelled as ego) -- what about the boundaries between and of masculinity and femininity?

No. Undermining ego is recognising what the boundaries of things, including I, really are. This process requires boundaries put in the right place. That's the only way to recognise what is ultimately true - by thinking. That's why A=A is so profitable, it's an all-inclusive boundary
.

This is what I understand by spiritual masochism.

I’m not sure I understand you, here. Can you elaborate?

Yes, I apologise for lacking clarity with my definition of spirit.

Spirit is Ultimate Truth, it's nothing in particular. It is what is always true. It's the absolute opposite of ego. Spirit has useful connotations, in that there's no body to grasp onto. It's the substance of everything, the true nature of all bodies, and has no separate existence of its own. Matt Gregory mentioned the idea of conceptualising of Reality as everything, and said he couldn't do it. This is the key to using dualism to understand nonduality. Trying to picture Reality as a particular finite thing is faulty, the thought of Reality must itself be everything that appears. It can't be grasped as something separate, but be recognised in everything, including the recognition.

This is why realising Ultimate Truth is so mind-blowing. It doesn't matter what appears, that is Reality. It won't change, regardless of who one is, what kind of consciousness one has, the civilisation, or lack thereof. It's absolute, and totally reliable.

Misogyny is an extension of this, because it counters my instincts to be sexually attractive, which I know is an illogical instinct. It's not about building up a self-image, but remembering how to overcome the preoccupation with self.

Misogyny is an extension of spiritual masochism? So you would consider the elimination of an instinctual urge to be spiritually masochistic? How do you define spiritual?

Spirituality is consciousness of Ultimate Truth and everything that entails. Spiritual masochism is all thoughts, values, ideas, activities that deliberately and rationally contradict egotistical ones. It's not instinctive at all. Or more accurately, it can never be a habit of egotism (belief that Reality is a thing, or that things are really there).

Regarding intelligence and wisdom -- I shall bear this in mind when speaking with you. I do not consider them one and the same, however. There are many intelligent but unwise people, in my view -- intelligence being defined as quantity of and ability to apply confined, rote knowledge, and; wisdom as the ability to correctly evaluate, assess and influence any given situation toward greater understanding of the nature of reality. Two very different things, very different outcomes, in my view.

This would mean wisdom had nothing to do with intelligence. How can being Truth be separate from intelligence?

So, what do you do if you have a problem and you don't have and don't want to have a husband? You pay for services. With money, not sex or food.

Or solve it yourself, with or without money. I should add, neither working nor vagrancy are automatically conducive to thinking about the nature of all things. But if either become a distraction, then they're problems to be solved logically. Best not to linger emotionally over them.

So far, I've distributed the Truth Paper for free, but if I don't have money, then I'll charge a dollar each, since that's what it costs to photocopy them.

[Jamesh]

From Kelly's paper

"Here follows an analysis of the popular, but logically flawed, belief that "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". This belief is supposed to be an absolute truth. It means that, when there is no beholder present, then falsehood reigns."

It has never meant that to me. It just means that truth is subjective. Sure you are not getting confused with "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?"

"All things are created, and that all lack inherent value

I sort of prefer this than saying "all things lack inherent existence", although even this I still reject.

I continue my dualistic stance that all things do have one form of inherent existence, namely the underlying form that allows an objects to have properties in the first place, but that their properties are temporary. I refuse to accept the QRS's illusionary definition of "inherent" - my definition of inherent is that “inherent is what makes a something that something". See below.

All the same, I would also point out that things DO have inherent value (using the dictionary definition of inherent), a value relating to an objects power to influence another object. For example, a sun has greater gravitational value than a planet. This is still a value, it is just not a human positive/negative value, it’s just a simple value relating to relativity between objects.

To say things do not have inherent attributes is an abuse of A=A. Without inherency how could one differentiate between on object or another.


Main Entry: inherent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: basic
Synonyms: built in, characteristic, congenital, connate, constitutional, deep-rooted, deep-seated, distinctive, elementary, essential, fixed, fundamental, hereditary, immanent, implicit, inborn, inbred, inbuilt, indigenous, indispensable, individual, indwelling, ingrained, inherited, innate, inner, instinctive, integral, integrated, internal, intimate, intrinsic, inward, latent, native, natural, original, resident, subjective, unalienable

[David Quinn]

James wrote:

I continue my dualistic stance that all things do have one form of inherent existence, namely the underlying form that allows an objects to have properties in the first place, but that their properties are temporary. I refuse to accept the QRS's illusionary definition of "inherent" - my definition of inherent is that “inherent is what makes a something that something". See below.

If that is the case, then the only thing which can have inherent existence is Nature itself. This is because an object's existence depends on countless causes. All of these causes combined - which, in the final analysis, comprise the whole of Nature - are what makes the object in question what it is.

All the same, I would also point out that things DO have inherent value (using the dictionary definition of inherent), a value relating to an objects power to influence another object. For example, a sun has greater gravitational value than a planet. This is still a value, it is just not a human positive/negative value, it’s just a simple value relating to relativity between objects.

The sun only has greater gravitational value by virtue of the rest of Nature giving it that value. Hence, even this value isn't inherent to the sun.

To say things do not have inherent attributes is an abuse of A=A. Without inherency how could one differentiate between on object or another.

Shadows have no inherent existence, yet we can still distinguish between them.

You're making the mistake of thinking that the form of an object is enough to give it inherent existence. It doesn't. After all, even an hallucination has a form.

-

[Blair]

For the benefit of more intelligent readers,

This comment alone is enough for me to dismiss you as a fraud.

You know little, young woman.

[sue hindmarsh]

Marsha wrote:

I do not get social benefit nor any other ego gratifying benefit from my work. I do it strictly to pay the bills. I would love to be free of it.

Giving up family, friends and a comfortable lifestyle is not for everyone. Kelly’s 'hermit’s lifestyle' may appear somewhat extreme, but if it serves her in her development, then I say - fair enough. It is possible that further down the track she may decide to live more comfortably, surround herself with family and friends,and even get a job, but still get on with the task she has set herself. It will depend on how deeply she enters into philosophy.

Then again, she may decide that worrying about her personal comfort is an unnecessary distraction. She may also think that having relationships with people, other than philosophical types, is a waste of her time. Having a job may prove a futile exercise, since she’d have no real need for lots of money, because she wouldn’t have a 'lifestyle' to support.

Then all she would need to survive in the world would be a few dollars for shelter, food and the internet - basically what she has now.


Australian’s live in a wonderful country that supports its geniuses by supplying them with enough money to survive. The fact that the government and the general public are not aware that they are doing this is of no real consequence.



Marsha wrote To Kelly:

I don't think you work harder on writing or thinking than I do. I just have to do it with a monkey on my back.

You are so right! Working, taking care of a family and trying to have some sort of intellectual life, is no picnic. There are all those emotional trials and tribulations that occur when trying to balance a life fractured by a thousand distractions.

Some days you wonder if it is all worth while.

I do not begrudge your privilege. I just think the pretense stinks.

Can there be anyone more deserving than those few who give up their lives for Truth, and then keep on living?


Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Marsha wrote:

I work with nearly all women. None of them can imagine life without a husband or whatever you want to call them. Their husbands do all the hard work for them.

A woman without a husband! What’s that?


Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Kelly wrote:

Feminine traits continue largely because those with enough masculine qualities are afraid of losing their security blankets. These are womanish people.

I think you meant to say “without enough masculine qualities”. Is that right?

It goes to show that women aren't concerned about the survival of the species at all.

What has the survival of the species got to do with women?

Sue

[Blair]

What a bunch of womanly crap.

yikes, it makes my skin crawl.

[Leyla Shen]

Take this scenario. Humans will increase their chances of survival by colonising or creating other planets. Because fuel is largely needed to escape earth's gravity, rockets have to be very lightweight (or we could build incredibly strong space jetties to start with). We'd reduce human body-weight by converting humans into lightweight robotic structures. Eventually too, the brain would become robotic, and humans no longer sexually reproductive. Even if there was a mother component, such as a nanobiotech product-testing factory, I don't think that would be a feminine sexual trait.

But, Kelly, this is precisely the problem I have with the basic thrust of your arguments.

It is a problem with logic.

What kind of feminist is it that turns a female into a male for the sake of women? Not a feminist at all, by definition.

So, who's increasing the chances of human survival if men need to obliterate humans by turning them into robots -- in order to survive???

That does not conform with A=A. Unless, of course, your A (your human) is no more than the masculine qualities you list above -- which is bullshit, of course.

If it were, you would be calling men humans and women -- well, animals. And we both know they have too much in common to separate them credibly in such a way.

You are, in fact, anti-human: anti-woman, and anti-man. How the heck is that wise? How is it wise when the very wisdom you promote will be the undoing of itself?

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla Shen Wrote to Kelly:

What kind of feminist is it that turns a female into a male for the sake of women?

The most blessed kind.

Not a feminist at all, by definition.

Not by definition, but by spirit.

If it were, you would be calling men humans and women -- well, animals. And we both know they have too much in common to separate them credibly in such a way.

It is true that most men are really women, and therefore together they could quite rightly be called animals. Luckily humanity is still hanging on by a thread due to the efforts of the few humans left.

You are, in fact, anti-human: anti-woman, and anti-man. How the heck is that wise?

I was going to complain that I thought Kelly was too “pro” all those things.

How is it wise when the very wisdom you promote will be the undoing of itself?

Exactly.


Sue

[MKFaizi]

Garden?

Every sort of shrub or grass or flower that I can grow. My goal is to have very little grass.

I am just becoming used to growing outdoors. Inside, I grow orchids and hoyas and rhipsalis -- and some other more common plants. I prefer succulent or succulent like plants -- corpeggia woodii, for example. Mispelled.

Kellly, I am not giving up growing plants and I am not giving up living indoors and I am not giving up the internet. Not selling the kids -- they are past that age -- getting old -- fifteen and seventeen.

I have often thought about walking out and living on the streets but -- nice to have no responsibility whatsoever -- but I don't see what living on the streets could have to do with wisdom.

I am not willing to give up bathing. I cannot see what being filthy has to do with wisdom.

I do not make much money. I get by -- barely. I have scraped and dodged for fourteen years to keep this house. The mortgage is very cheap. Next year, the mortgage will be paid.

As for living as a hermit, I am pretty close. I prefer that. I have no close friends. I don't socialize -- not that I would not -- I don't have the need.

I am not going to live without electricity. I am not going to live without running water. I know that wisdom has nothing to do with not having light or water.

I don't believe that wisdom has anything to do with giving up. Giving up implies that one does something because one feels that he must or because he has been intstructed to do so. I do think, however, there is such a thing as shedding. Shedding is a process that takes years. You don't do it overnight.

For instance, I have shed the need for men. I loathe them. So called men are women to me. Not because I hate men. I don't. I like them. But I know enough to know that I don't want one on my property. They interfere with everything and are distracting. Kind of like having Marilyn Monroe around when you are trying to think. I look at them from a distance and somewhat appreciate them but I don't want one up close or anywhere near. Killers.

I get the feeling that you are yet attached to men, Kelly. You credit them too much. You seem so dazzled by Rhett Hamilton and Kevin Solway.

Your two Marilyns.

Faizi

[Leyla Shen]

All I have to say to your post at the moment, Sue Hindmarsh, is: pigs arse, mate. I ain't layin' down for no motherfucking bitch with a 2 inch strap on.

And, I'm prophetic, I knew this beauty was coming:

Leyla: How is it wise when the very wisdom you promote will be the undoing of itself?

Sue: Exactly.

[MKFaizi]

Damn. Who said anything about a bitch with a stap on?

A man is to woman as woman is to man. A man is a woman with a strap on.

Faizi